The LACBC has extended the deadline to apply for the Executive Director position (pdf). If you think you’re up to the challenge of leading one of the nation’s most vibrant and innovative bike advocacy organizations — or know someone who is — you’ve got just a few more weeks to apply.

After analyzing the unique qualities of the state’s antiquated traffic laws, they determined that an argument could be made either way. And since it doesn’t have national implications, they’d rather work to change the law than help fight in court for her right to ride.

Their reasoning makes perfect sense.

But I can’t help thinking they’re leaving her alone to face the legal lions, when they could easily step in to lend a hand.

Because moral support ain’t worth a damn on the streets. Or in the courts.

A Springfield MO man gets seven years in the death of a cyclist who was killed as the man’s girlfriend attempted to flee from him as he chased her through the streets of the town in a stolen car after flashing a gun. Sounds like he got off way too easy.

Clearly, distracted driving isn’t just an American problem, as a Chinese bus driver faces criminal charges for killing an elderly bike rider while checking his cell phone. (Fair warning, this story includes video of the collision from the driver’s perspective — something you may not want to see. I know I didn’t.)

5 comments

The legal analysis is poor. The judge in the lower court decision chose to disallow or disregard expert witness testimony regarding how practicable riding on the shoulder is on the road in question. The experts are unanimous that the shoulder is not practicable in this case. Even Steve Clark of the LAB, who is a big facilities advocate, considers the shoulder to not be practicable and he rode the route with Schill.

Andy Clarke is effectively saying that he agrees that Schill should not be allowed to use the travel lane on this road and he agrees with the judge and county attorney and does not support the right of bicyclists to use the roads. He is agreeing with the motorists who harass her. He is not an advocate of bicyclists in the real world in any way whatsoever.

Totally agree, Bill. I am completely disgusted with the LAB right now. I took the Traffic Skills 101 course a few weeks ago, and now they are basically here, we’ll teach you to ride this way, effectively and safely, but if and when law enforcement decides to wrongly cite you for it, it’s not our problem.

Completely unacceptable. I’m sure glad I have never given the LAB any of my money.

I also find the League’s post on Cherokee Schill to be disingenuous and implausible. They seem to be saying that recognizing the right of bicyclists to ride on major highways won’t be attractive to other bicyclists, and may lead to bicyclists being banned from those roads. Instead, bicyclists should stay off these roads until the state builds MUPs.

This location does not have the pastoral MUPs the bike league prefers; it seems not to even have lower traffic roads as alternate routes that are moderately direct. I fail to see how the current decision can possibly be better than having the option to use these debatably unappealing lanes as normal traffic.

This decision gives the police the right to enforce the ban the League is allegedly concerned about. If they’re concerned about bicyclists not being allowed to use roads, whey aren’t they objecting to decisions that bicyclists aren’t competent to judge what is safe without being arrested?

If this decistion accurately reflects KY state law, why aren’t the neighboring counties removing Ms. Schill from this road?

First let me say my remarks remain nearly completely unconsidered in the light of the detailed facts and analysis regarding the criminal prosecution on behalf of the mob of someone exercising reasonable even legal discretion to act for herself or not but politically or not as well simultaneously.

Instead I comment narrowly on the League considering her trial attorney of any tenure appropriate for any briefing whatsoever on there/our ‘formal’ involvement and support. That decision is indefensible upon actual scrutiny even if it has glorious optics for the larger mobs fundraising or profiteering might dwell upon.

Specifically such an advocate has a great conflict of interest, having chosen to ‘assist’, possibly wrongly given there limited means etc. and existing conflicts. Further there role is at best when out of court especially as mouthpiece, so absent her mouth only treachery should be expected if other then silence issues.

I would take it as a given that the class of people who ride bikes currently is the worst enemy of those who should and would be using them for mobility but for this far too unmotley crew of recreational and worse enthusiasts we so far constitute.

She would be better served by chinese academics in exile, perhaps in novel form if by media creation at all. It can’t be said too many times- technology exists to detect, warn, and then eliminate vehicular threats we face on such high speed even roads. Such a shield, from a practical matter, belongs on board her rig. She can more effectively defend against the ensuing frivolous loss of life charges brought while out on bail as everyone knows if you drive on a highway you place little value on your life, that it is a war zone with far more casualties per decade not just almost any week or moth then all the engagements oversees in sum have ever constituted since the model T was in beta release.

Our legislature’s need lobbying for mandatory installation of computer overrides should say a driver be shot by the rear seat gun on her set of wheels after due process in warning has occurred. Most driver’s will support this compared to losing controll via some onstar system while still alive. Our attitude is- only over our dead body does our car get sidelined additional loss of life. So be it. She can for example have a scrolling digital message for however many days warning the speed limit is being exceeded- and then selectively reduce the number of violators as a deterrent thereafter noting there repeated deliberate endangerment of her in violation of the law before authorizing the systems use of lethal force.

She can also expect to be restrained from powering it up while the courts review her right in this regard- and may perish during the course of that litigation but plenty of others will tow it until the inevitable green light issues as self defense is fundamental perhaps the only pillar of democracy and our system does allow one woman even the right to life regardless of how many up to then nearly brain-dead already hummer owners have to be put out of business forever to insure it’s safety.

I would hope she would notify family members a month or more about such speeder’s or hooter’s etc., if any, before entering the code, but that decision is up to her I’m sure the courts will agree.

AMENDED:(paragraph six, 3rd from bottom was meant to read) “Our attitude is- only over our dead body does our car get sidelined WITHOUT additional loss of life. So be it[. Not additional loss of life, just that of the perp requiring the same to obstain]

Search for:

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.